16 ms·

But remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s We're expected to shave off a few kilos of CO2 here and there, usually at significant personal expens

But remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s We're expected to shave off a few kilos of CO2 here and there, usually at significant personal expense, while nothing is being done about these releases that a) could be avoided relatively easily b) have a much bigger impact. The abstract mentions ~8 million metric tons of methane per year. Using a GWP of 28 (which seems to be the value from the IPPC's AR5) that's equivalent to around 224 million tons of CO2. That's 224 billion kg CO2e, or around 28 kg CO2e for every human on the world, just from the large leaks (not from the ongoing smaller leaks which are >10x as big according to the article). So yeah, go ahead and tell me (and everyone else) to go vegan for a month [1] or make similarly impactful changes just so companies can continue venting methane. To avoid being only negative: The obvious solution would be to require companies to buy emission certificates for those emissions, with a penalty factor that accounts for the probability of detection if they didn't accurately self-report and had to get caught. This would create an immediate incentive to reduce those easily avoidable emissions, and should be relatively easy to implement if we can get accurate enough data from satellites or aircraft. It would also ensure these emissions are accounted for in the emissions trading framework, so we don't emit the allocated amount elsewhere and are then surprised by the unaccounted-for emissions. [1] Assuming I replace 250 kcal from pork per day with Tofu (around 100g of pork which seems to be considered "one serving"), this would be savings of ~1 kg CO2e per day: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore

marliechiller 5y ago
As a side, note, I'd like to point out that you should go vegan predominantly for the moral ethics of killing something for 5 mins of taste pleasure rather than purely environmental concerns (although valid)
- MayeulC 5y ago
  > you should go vegan Don't force anybody please. As for moral ethics, those are really different depending on where you come from, your current outlook on life, etc. Ethics are not universal. I'm personally 98% vegetarian due to the lesser ecologic impact. It's also healthier, not killing animals, and has a lot of side-benefits. But don't assume the reason you specifically picked will work for everyone.
  - marliechiller 5y ago
    You misunderstand. I'm not forcing anyone. I was replying directly to the original posters comment. Also to your last point, please dont assume that I am assuming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, dairy and eggs still contribute to mass slaughter and suffering so your point about not killing animals on a your stated diet is a bit misinformed.
    - MayeulC 5y ago
      Sorry for coming over as harsh, that was not my intention. It's just that I interpreted your should as a relatively strong word. I agree that male chicks are being massively slaughtered after they hatch in order to get hens. For every male chick that dies, you get more than 300 eggs a year for a couple years. Hens are usually slaughtered too after some time because they get less productive. My point was mostly that bringing ethics into any topic is something you can't do without acknowledging that people have different views on what's ethical. At which point is it okay to terminate a chicken? That's a very debatable topic, same as abortion. What is not up for debate is the carbon impact of various diets. That's quite easy to measure, and much more objective.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  What moral ethics? A natural predator will eat its prey while it still lives, providing a slow and painful death. While I agree that livestock living conditions mostly suck, at least we provide a quick and painless death.
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    I think you will be hard pressed to assign a positive spin on the treatment of livestock as it stands today. The best take one could reach for is perhaps that it's a necessary evil for feeding the planet right now. > at least we provide a quick and painless death Without trying to sound like I'm on a pulpit, "quick and painless" is not how I would describe sow stalls. The prevalence of ag-gag laws speaks to this. This is a subject that I don't have a good answer to, and I eat meat too, but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      Last I heard the standard practice was that animals were stunned and then dealt a killing blow. Is this not true? > but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start. Watching r/natureismetal and David Attenborough documentaries I find myself far more taken aback at the viciousness of some predators (even some trees!) than anything I read in Fast Food Nation, and sections of that book were absolutely disgusting
      - lelandfe 5y ago
        This is a strange, myopic argument. The moral quandary around factory farms does not generally stem from how quickly abattoirs perform their job, as it is economically prudent to kill livestock quickly. There is not much incentive to treat them well beforehand.
        tomc1985 5y ago
        And my point is that the bucolic pastoral life only exists as created by humans. Everywhere else almost all animals are subject to the whims of the food chain, which can be as cruel if not more cruel than we humans. It's a much wider variation, for sure, but I simply do not understand the moral superiority that animal rights activists feel. Like, veganism because methane emissions are accelerating global warming? I can get behind that. Veganism because of some dietary need someone has? Sure. But veganism because we are mean to animals? You're stretching it...
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Why is killing animals bad?
  - hervature 5y ago
    For the same reason we don't have gladiators anymore. We are at a point in time where humans can meet all of our dietary needs through plants as we now understand what things need to be fortified and which don't. Eating meat, for many people, boils down to killing another being for one's own pleasure "tastiness" (I put it in quotes because most people butcher cooking meat at home). If one has no qualms with killing animals unnecessarily, then we should really be feeding all the stray dogs to the homeless but obviously this does not happen. Why? Because people have moral issues with killing dogs and cats. Not eating meat is simply an extension of this.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      I would say the reason it's a taboo to eat predators and scavengers like cats and dogs and rats and bears and sharks and coyotes and tigers and lions and what have you is because predators and scavengers accumulate parasites and toxins. At any rate, you're still not explaining why, merely pointing out an inconsistency across animals as a whole. What if it is wrong to eat dogs but right to eat cows? Why couldn't it be so?
      - hervature 5y ago
        Where I come from, eating bear was not considered taboo. Many places also with sharks. I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but "thou shall not kill" is a pretty universal rule in all societies around the world. I think the onus is on you to explain why that rule should be broken. For instance, going to war to stop tyranny could be a justification.
        marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Couldn't this line of reasoning also be extended to plants? Why is it wrong to eat a hamburger but not to mow your lawn or treat a bacterial infection? Surely, if all killing is equally wrong, then how can we go on living? One could even claim to be righteously executing the murderous cow because it spends all day maiming and murdering innocent plant matter.
LoveMortuus 5y ago
Kurzgesagt made a really good video about climate change [0]. What stuck with me the most was that if I would eliminate 100% of my emissions in my entire life, I would save 1 second of global energy sector emissions. [0] https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc
keymone 5y ago
“Personal footprint” is propaganda by oil/gas/coal industries, it’s absolutely idiotic. There should be a worldwide tax on producing greenhouse gas. Extreme economic, business, travel, etc, isolation on every country/corporation that doesn’t subscribe to it. Bankrupt them into the ground.
- duped 5y ago
  I mean at the end of the day attempting to shift blame to "the corporations" for emissions is neglecting the fact that the corporations are emitting in order to (ultimately) supply consumers.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    So if my municipal water company, through its incompetent failure to maintain infrastructure, damages a road due to a water main break, that’s my fault because I need to drink? It’s pathetic that the thought process of corporate PR flacks has sunk into the brains of normal people.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Not your fault, but in part your responsibility to fix it which would likely be incurred by higher rates in the future to pay for maintenance. Those maintenance costs can be an externality for end-users as well. Fines and costs will trickle down to consumers (that's not to say they are unwarranted).
      - Spooky23 5y ago
        Typically it’s cheaper to maintain vs wait for stuff to fail. My wife used to be a finance director for a water utility. Part of that gig was having a capital program that proactively maintained infrastructure. When they started that program ~20 years ago, they were criticized for a resulting higher rate structure. (5-7%) more than a similar city in the region. But now… that difference flipped and then some. A key failure of critical valves in the neighboring city cost nearly $10M, while the planned replacement was like 80% less.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> But remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s Why not both? I work to reduce my personal carbon footprint out of principle.
- __s 5y ago
  That's nice, me too, but it's important to not drown out the conversation with deflection. Ultimately it's difficult to rally people behind one thing, nevermind multiple things. So policy discussions should focus on matters with high return It's also easier for discussions accusing people of being wasteful slobs to degenerate into partisan mud slinging
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Very good point. I think you're right. It's more likely to succeed with a pragmatic and undiluted message of targeting the worst offenders first.
- ballenf 5y ago
  Because it's like trying to get to Mars by both jumping really high and building a rocket.
  - tjoff 5y ago
    Maybe jumping is the only signal politicians have that people are willing to pay for a rocket.
- LightG 5y ago
  Exactly ... I'm incredulous as to why this is even debatable.
paulluuk 5y ago
First of all let me say that I do absolutely agree with you that the whole concept of taking "personal responsibility" for our CO2 footprints is insane and we should clearly be creating tougher regulations on an international level. However, from the perspective of "okay, but what can I actually do?", it's still worthwhile to do things like going vegan, flying less, isolating your house, etc. And on top of that: vote for green parties (if you country has any). If there are no such parties in your country, then vote for whichever politicians are in favor of regulation of industrial pollution. I'm not implying that you don't know this, just putting it to text in case anyone reads this and thinks "yeah indeed, why would I have to change anything if those companies don't?!".
- SECProto 5y ago
  "Vote for the green party" in my country would, in many ridings, be the difference between the only climate-change-denying party winning a seat, and one of the three climate-change-believing-and-respond-to-it parties winning a seat. Which is less than helpful when it comes to addressing climate change.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can do other things as well as Vote. It's not like voting is so all encompassing that you'd be unable to work/participate in other areas at the same time.
    - SECProto 5y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that, I was just responding to the parent comment. Voting for the green party can actually cause anti-environmental outcomes (in my jurisdiction).
  - datameta 5y ago
    Hearing that this distribution of parties exists somewhere is great to hear. It's a proper baseplate for improvement.
- 5y ago
friedturkey 5y ago
> But remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s Where do you think the demand for gas pipelines comes from? Spoilers: our collective desire for it drives the development of pipelines.
- tremon 5y ago
  "We" do not demand leaky pipelines.
  - friedturkey 5y ago
    But people sure do want cheap fuel and electricity. Cheapness comes at a cost, and people consistently choose the cheapest providers when given a choice. Absolving ourselves is responsibility is why progress has stalled for decades.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Which is why the leakers should be financially punished so that they are no longer cheap. If their prices are so cheap they are unable to afford basic mantainence or quality builds, then a) maybe pay the C-suite people a little less (they can't afford it), b) they are not charging enough to actually run a business.
    - themaninthedark 5y ago
      People want cheap everything. They also want clean water and air, that is why they vote for people who enact regulations. Take software for example, people want cheap software. Paid software declines vs software with ads or tracking in it. People are upset because they don't want ads and tracking. Maybe regulations are enacted and paid software comes back. Maybe it moves to a different model.
- seanp2k2 5y ago
  It’s not as if PG&E has a checkbox like “Pay 5% more for us to fix gas leaks?” or gas stations have an octane selection that pollutes less. Consumers have the choice in some cases to consume less, but we need to affect one very specific thing (better maintenance) that companies with lower demand would, I’m sure, be happy to just pocket in additional savings or profit if they don’t have a damn good incentive to care. Then on a political level, at least here in the US, the choice for politicians who could hope to influence this is between a party of “we don’t believe climate change is real // it’s real but not a big deal // inevitable / natural causes” and “climate change is real but we still won’t make much real change” or maybe even “climate change is real and we demand real change but Congress won’t pass anything even mildly changing the calculus for companies because 49% is the party who doesn’t care / is on the climate-affecting companies payroll and the other 1% required to swing the vote can be bought for 1/100th the price the proposed legislation would cost us”. It’s frustrating, and the result is that the world burns and everyone just argues about whose fault it is while trying to do any small things they can to help while companies and politicians continue to not really care that we’re rapidly heading towards a non-inhabitable planet in a few generations.
Boritanian 5y ago
The leak is a cost of doing business of delivering gas to YOU the consumer. So the leak is actually part of your carbon footprint.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  But I have no control over the leak part. I have no option to pay more to close the leak. In fact, most consumers don't even know about the leak. So I'm entirely unable to make a choice. It's irrational to expect that anyone would prefer to go vegan over just fixing these leaks. This problem will remain till we have a proper carbon tax globally.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    You can always vote for the politicians that are willing to go after the gas leaks, you can choose to buy from companies that are sourcing from leak-free gas pipes or use renewable energy sources etc. Just because you don't have direct access to the pipelines so you can close the leaks with your bare hands doesn't mean that you have no power over it. None of us have any control beyond 2 meters of our existence because that's how far away we can reach with our hands but because we live in a society the things we say or choices we make have impact everywhere on the globe. That's also why we can eat things that are further away than a few meters from us and the leak in question is from the machinery that facilitates all that.
    - ajmurmann 5y ago
      > You can always vote for the politicians that are willing to go after the gas leaks, you can choose to buy from companies that are sourcing from leak-free gas pipes or use renewable energy sources etc. None of these things are true for me. I'm not allowed to vote where I live and even if I could, the US election system doesn't offer a practical voice that reflects this (the broken voting method is arguably is the biggest problem the US needs to solve). I also only have a doctor gas company. So my alternative would be to switch my furnace, water heater and stove to electric. That's actually on my wishlist, but now we are talking significant money. People who live in apartments or even condos likely at best have control over the stove. Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't take responsibility. In fact I've moved to a largely vegan diet both due to carbon emissions and animal cruelty concerns. I feel guilty every day and wonder if my positive contributions outweigh the damage that my existence does to our environment and the harm and pain climate change will ultimately cause for other people as well as coastal cities behind uninhabitable, we see unrest over climate refugees, famines, etc.
arichard123 5y ago
Focusing on personal responsibility is a worthwhile thing to say to persons for whom their only contribution can be their own personal consumption. Also, in democracies, this will lead to political pressure for companies and government to make efforts that suit their status.
- jerry1979 5y ago
  That seems overly cynical to me. People can tell when they are being guilted.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > People can tell when they are being guilted. And it is an extremely effective way to alienate them and make them vote for the opposition party.
mrtksn 5y ago
Your math seems to be off, 250kcal apparently yields 8.8kg difference a day. Anyway, the idea that personal consumption has no use is absurd. It portrays a false idea that these pipes and factories and what not are made for the personal use of the affluent when in fact all these machinery produce items demanded by the masses. That's why the owners are rich, they produce(facilitate could be a better word) the stuff we want and we give them money to receive the output. Obviously, reducing personal consumption or making choices directly reduces the output of the machinery of the rich. If you want to blame a class, you are better off blaming private jets, mega yacht and golf courses if you are after the rich. These are the only emissions that are significantly different from the rest. Then you come to transportation and large homes of the middle class in western countries, especially the USA.
- TremendousJudge 5y ago
  The point is that they could still produce the exact same thing, and just _plug their leaks_, and everybody would be better off.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    Why do you think they don't do that? Could it be because they are evil or because not enough people will care enough to pay for the price difference due to clean production efforts? It comes down the masses demanding it or not demanding it. You say that personal consumption doesn't make a difference then those who believe you go for the cheaper option even if they can afford the cleaner option. You say that personal efforts can't make a difference then they vote for the party that promises tax reductions instead of the one that promises to enforce fixed gas leaks.
    - mojzu 5y ago
      Are there that many industries where consumer choice would encourage companies to make those kinds of pro-humanity choices? I'd like to buy electronics that aren't manufactured in part by children but it isn't like companies advertise whether they do that or not. So outside of occasional investigative journalism or assuming that they (or one of their suppliers) probably do what choices am I left with?
BurningFrog 5y ago
> The obvious solution would be to require companies to buy emission certificates for those emissions Reality check: The companies the article talks about are in Russia and Turkmenistan. How would you impose these emission certificate regulations without invading them and/or toppling their governments?
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Trade agreements conditioned on acceptance and economic sanctions and embargos if not. It's an economic measure you want, you obviously can motivate them economically.
- tazjin 5y ago
  Your comment reflects a strange perspective, as if the community to which you're talking is only from a single place and somehow excludes Russia/Turkmenistan/US/whatever. That's not the case, HN is an international forum. These laws need to be implemented in each country.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Russia and Turkmenistan are both run by a single strongman. I suppose HN comments could influence Putin or Berdimuhamedow, but I feel safe assuming they do not.
    - tazjin 5y ago
      This is already getting coverage in Russian media. Your assumption that our politicians need a lot of influencing to care about this is probably wrong, especially since these leaks lead to financial losses. I'd be more surprised if the US did something about it than Russia, to be honest.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  a) Ask them whether they want to participate in the scheme to ensure the actual emitters pay their fair share. b) If they decline, allocate the emissions from these sources to the products the country exports and impose import duties that correspond to (or exceed) what the certificates would cost.
BurningFrog 5y ago
About "personal carbon footprint". Life is not an Avengers movie. You and I are not superheroes that can save the world. What you or I do in our personal lives have, by any remotely realistic measure, exactly zero impact on the problem. Thinking otherwise is to me - and I wish I had a less negative term for it - a form of "Delusion of grandeur". It's harmless in a sense, except that people could use the effort they spend to actually improve things for themselves and people around them. In reality global problems are solved on the global level. Things like carbon taxes, technical innovation etc.
- polishdude20 5y ago
  Isn't a global solution to get everyone to do what they can personally? Why is it global when it applies to corporations but not when it applies to regular people?
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    The way you get everyone to do things in a society is not by setting an example and doing it yourself but by getting the government to set taxes, incentives, penalties, negotiate treaties - so that people have a clear incentive to behave properly (financial or otherwise). This presupposes competent governments who care, obviously, which is the crux.
- chimprich 5y ago
  That kind of thinking leads to conclusions like "voting is worthless", or "throwing litter in the bin rather than street makes no difference". > exactly zero impact on the problem Exactly not zero. Small, perhaps, and smaller than global initiatives, but lots of coordinated small actions at scale do make a difference.
  - MobiusHorizons 5y ago
    Genuine question. Is there any evidence that the thousands of Americans who have gone vegan over the last few years have reduced the carbon footprint of the meat producing industry at all? I checked us beef production, and the numbers are basically flat since 2000 increasing slightly since 2014.[1] If thousands of people going vegan don’t reduce the beef production in this country at all, have they really saved any carbon at all? Would love to see someone with a good data science background look into this. It’s all well and good to talk about personal consumption as if it has fixed carbon cost associated with it, but you have to remember that not consuming doesn’t reduce the emissions unless it affects production. It’s still probably good to reduce consumption because it could affect the production, but it may not be enough to cause any change at all. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194687/us-total-beef-production-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194687/us-total-beef-pro...
time_to_smile 5y ago
While I agree that we blaming individuals is ridiculous, actually addressing this issue and getting towards zero emissions anywhere near enough time will make: > significant personal expense Look like luxury living. Our economy is energy, and currently the vast majority of the energy comes from hydrocarbons. We simply cannot scale renewables up high enough, fast enough, to avoid catastrophe without a change in live style so severe that most people would over throw governments in protest. People on this site think wearing a face mask during a pandemic is a material injustice. We aren't going to address climate change.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  I dispute that the economy is energy or even proportional to it. California, as inefficient as it is on a global scale, has substantially decoupled its economy from energy consumption over the last thirty years.
  - time_to_smile 5y ago
    You can't look at local energy usage and make this claim. It's not only the goods and services that come into the state that require energy in other countries, but all of the capital the flows in as well that ultimately has it's source in energy someplace else on the globe. I recommend reading Smil's Energy and Civilization for a better picture of this.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      California has similar consumption import patterns as other U.S. states like Texas, but compared to those other states the economy of California has departed from their energy/gsp ratios.
danans 5y ago
> but remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s The best way to reduce your carbon emissions is to upgrade your life at the same time by electrifying it, as your economics permit. Along with a silent zippy electric car, you get the added benefit of improving your local and hyper local air quality.
wolverine876 5y ago
> usually at significant personal expense IME, it's usually at no expense. Many/most of the things I've changed are merely a change of habit; some are easier and better. For simple example, I wash my clothes on a delicate cold cycle - the clothes come out just as clean, and suffer less wear, and my energy bill goes down. Overall, changes like that have reduced my energy bill by 70% with almost no impact on my lifestyle. > We're expected to shave off a few kilos of CO2 here and there, usually at significant personal expense, while nothing is being done about these releases that a) could be avoided relatively easily b) have a much bigger impact. The fact that someone else should do more has nothing to do with the impact and responsibility of what I do. Powerful people can do awful things, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't and won't do my best to do what's good and excellent. If we accept the lowest common denominator as our standard .... Why would you follow the worst of others. Look for the best, the most inspiring. It's trendy to mock collective and individual action, including democracy itself - to give all our power, good or bad, to corporations (and mockery isn't an argument, just a signal that people lack one). They are happy to hear it. > go vegan for a month [1] or make similarly impactful changes just so companies can continue venting methane. That's not why.
odonnellryan 5y ago
[1] Assuming I replace 250 kcal from pork per day with Tofu (around 100g of pork which seems to be considered "one serving"), this would be savings of ~1 kg CO2e per day: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore I think most people get more than 250kcal a day from meat. Seems like a strong argument to go vegan to me.
triceratops 5y ago
> So yeah, go ahead and tell me (and everyone else) to go vegan for a month...The obvious solution would be to require companies to buy emission certificates for those emissions Vegans are way more likely to vote for laws like you're suggesting. They can't be swayed by fear-mongering campaigns of "burgers are getting more expensive so we can save the polar bears".

marliechiller 5y ago

As a side, note, I'd like to point out that you should go vegan predominantly for the moral ethics of killing something for 5 mins of taste pleasure rather than purely environmental concerns (although valid)

MayeulC 5y ago
> you should go vegan Don't force anybody please. As for moral ethics, those are really different depending on where you come from, your current outlook on life, etc. Ethics are not universal. I'm personally 98% vegetarian due to the lesser ecologic impact. It's also healthier, not killing animals, and has a lot of side-benefits. But don't assume the reason you specifically picked will work for everyone.
- marliechiller 5y ago
  You misunderstand. I'm not forcing anyone. I was replying directly to the original posters comment. Also to your last point, please dont assume that I am assuming. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, dairy and eggs still contribute to mass slaughter and suffering so your point about not killing animals on a your stated diet is a bit misinformed.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    Sorry for coming over as harsh, that was not my intention. It's just that I interpreted your should as a relatively strong word. I agree that male chicks are being massively slaughtered after they hatch in order to get hens. For every male chick that dies, you get more than 300 eggs a year for a couple years. Hens are usually slaughtered too after some time because they get less productive. My point was mostly that bringing ethics into any topic is something you can't do without acknowledging that people have different views on what's ethical. At which point is it okay to terminate a chicken? That's a very debatable topic, same as abortion. What is not up for debate is the carbon impact of various diets. That's quite easy to measure, and much more objective.
tomc1985 5y ago
What moral ethics? A natural predator will eat its prey while it still lives, providing a slow and painful death. While I agree that livestock living conditions mostly suck, at least we provide a quick and painless death.
- lelandfe 5y ago
  I think you will be hard pressed to assign a positive spin on the treatment of livestock as it stands today. The best take one could reach for is perhaps that it's a necessary evil for feeding the planet right now. > at least we provide a quick and painless death Without trying to sound like I'm on a pulpit, "quick and painless" is not how I would describe sow stalls. The prevalence of ag-gag laws speaks to this. This is a subject that I don't have a good answer to, and I eat meat too, but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    Last I heard the standard practice was that animals were stunned and then dealt a killing blow. Is this not true? > but I think we should at least call a spade a spade to start. Watching r/natureismetal and David Attenborough documentaries I find myself far more taken aback at the viciousness of some predators (even some trees!) than anything I read in Fast Food Nation, and sections of that book were absolutely disgusting
    - lelandfe 5y ago
      This is a strange, myopic argument. The moral quandary around factory farms does not generally stem from how quickly abattoirs perform their job, as it is economically prudent to kill livestock quickly. There is not much incentive to treat them well beforehand.
      - tomc1985 5y ago
        And my point is that the bucolic pastoral life only exists as created by humans. Everywhere else almost all animals are subject to the whims of the food chain, which can be as cruel if not more cruel than we humans. It's a much wider variation, for sure, but I simply do not understand the moral superiority that animal rights activists feel. Like, veganism because methane emissions are accelerating global warming? I can get behind that. Veganism because of some dietary need someone has? Sure. But veganism because we are mean to animals? You're stretching it...
marginalia_nu 5y ago
Why is killing animals bad?
- hervature 5y ago
  For the same reason we don't have gladiators anymore. We are at a point in time where humans can meet all of our dietary needs through plants as we now understand what things need to be fortified and which don't. Eating meat, for many people, boils down to killing another being for one's own pleasure "tastiness" (I put it in quotes because most people butcher cooking meat at home). If one has no qualms with killing animals unnecessarily, then we should really be feeding all the stray dogs to the homeless but obviously this does not happen. Why? Because people have moral issues with killing dogs and cats. Not eating meat is simply an extension of this.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    I would say the reason it's a taboo to eat predators and scavengers like cats and dogs and rats and bears and sharks and coyotes and tigers and lions and what have you is because predators and scavengers accumulate parasites and toxins. At any rate, you're still not explaining why, merely pointing out an inconsistency across animals as a whole. What if it is wrong to eat dogs but right to eat cows? Why couldn't it be so?
    - hervature 5y ago
      Where I come from, eating bear was not considered taboo. Many places also with sharks. I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but "thou shall not kill" is a pretty universal rule in all societies around the world. I think the onus is on you to explain why that rule should be broken. For instance, going to war to stop tyranny could be a justification.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        Couldn't this line of reasoning also be extended to plants? Why is it wrong to eat a hamburger but not to mow your lawn or treat a bacterial infection? Surely, if all killing is equally wrong, then how can we go on living? One could even claim to be righteously executing the murderous cow because it spends all day maiming and murdering innocent plant matter.

LoveMortuus 5y ago

Kurzgesagt made a really good video about climate change [0]. What stuck with me the most was that if I would eliminate 100% of my emissions in my entire life, I would save 1 second of global energy sector emissions. [0] https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc

keymone 5y ago

“Personal footprint” is propaganda by oil/gas/coal industries, it’s absolutely idiotic. There should be a worldwide tax on producing greenhouse gas. Extreme economic, business, travel, etc, isolation on every country/corporation that doesn’t subscribe to it. Bankrupt them into the ground.

duped 5y ago
I mean at the end of the day attempting to shift blame to "the corporations" for emissions is neglecting the fact that the corporations are emitting in order to (ultimately) supply consumers.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  So if my municipal water company, through its incompetent failure to maintain infrastructure, damages a road due to a water main break, that’s my fault because I need to drink? It’s pathetic that the thought process of corporate PR flacks has sunk into the brains of normal people.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Not your fault, but in part your responsibility to fix it which would likely be incurred by higher rates in the future to pay for maintenance. Those maintenance costs can be an externality for end-users as well. Fines and costs will trickle down to consumers (that's not to say they are unwarranted).
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      Typically it’s cheaper to maintain vs wait for stuff to fail. My wife used to be a finance director for a water utility. Part of that gig was having a capital program that proactively maintained infrastructure. When they started that program ~20 years ago, they were criticized for a resulting higher rate structure. (5-7%) more than a similar city in the region. But now… that difference flipped and then some. A key failure of critical valves in the neighboring city cost nearly $10M, while the planned replacement was like 80% less.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> But remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s Why not both? I work to reduce my personal carbon footprint out of principle.

__s 5y ago
That's nice, me too, but it's important to not drown out the conversation with deflection. Ultimately it's difficult to rally people behind one thing, nevermind multiple things. So policy discussions should focus on matters with high return It's also easier for discussions accusing people of being wasteful slobs to degenerate into partisan mud slinging
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Very good point. I think you're right. It's more likely to succeed with a pragmatic and undiluted message of targeting the worst offenders first.
ballenf 5y ago
Because it's like trying to get to Mars by both jumping really high and building a rocket.
- tjoff 5y ago
  Maybe jumping is the only signal politicians have that people are willing to pay for a rocket.
LightG 5y ago
Exactly ... I'm incredulous as to why this is even debatable.

paulluuk 5y ago

First of all let me say that I do absolutely agree with you that the whole concept of taking "personal responsibility" for our CO2 footprints is insane and we should clearly be creating tougher regulations on an international level. However, from the perspective of "okay, but what can I actually do?", it's still worthwhile to do things like going vegan, flying less, isolating your house, etc. And on top of that: vote for green parties (if you country has any). If there are no such parties in your country, then vote for whichever politicians are in favor of regulation of industrial pollution. I'm not implying that you don't know this, just putting it to text in case anyone reads this and thinks "yeah indeed, why would I have to change anything if those companies don't?!".

SECProto 5y ago
"Vote for the green party" in my country would, in many ridings, be the difference between the only climate-change-denying party winning a seat, and one of the three climate-change-believing-and-respond-to-it parties winning a seat. Which is less than helpful when it comes to addressing climate change.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can do other things as well as Vote. It's not like voting is so all encompassing that you'd be unable to work/participate in other areas at the same time.
  - SECProto 5y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that, I was just responding to the parent comment. Voting for the green party can actually cause anti-environmental outcomes (in my jurisdiction).
- datameta 5y ago
  Hearing that this distribution of parties exists somewhere is great to hear. It's a proper baseplate for improvement.
5y ago

friedturkey 5y ago

> But remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s Where do you think the demand for gas pipelines comes from? Spoilers: our collective desire for it drives the development of pipelines.

tremon 5y ago
"We" do not demand leaky pipelines.
- friedturkey 5y ago
  But people sure do want cheap fuel and electricity. Cheapness comes at a cost, and people consistently choose the cheapest providers when given a choice. Absolving ourselves is responsibility is why progress has stalled for decades.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Which is why the leakers should be financially punished so that they are no longer cheap. If their prices are so cheap they are unable to afford basic mantainence or quality builds, then a) maybe pay the C-suite people a little less (they can't afford it), b) they are not charging enough to actually run a business.
  - themaninthedark 5y ago
    People want cheap everything. They also want clean water and air, that is why they vote for people who enact regulations. Take software for example, people want cheap software. Paid software declines vs software with ads or tracking in it. People are upset because they don't want ads and tracking. Maybe regulations are enacted and paid software comes back. Maybe it moves to a different model.
seanp2k2 5y ago
It’s not as if PG&E has a checkbox like “Pay 5% more for us to fix gas leaks?” or gas stations have an octane selection that pollutes less. Consumers have the choice in some cases to consume less, but we need to affect one very specific thing (better maintenance) that companies with lower demand would, I’m sure, be happy to just pocket in additional savings or profit if they don’t have a damn good incentive to care. Then on a political level, at least here in the US, the choice for politicians who could hope to influence this is between a party of “we don’t believe climate change is real // it’s real but not a big deal // inevitable / natural causes” and “climate change is real but we still won’t make much real change” or maybe even “climate change is real and we demand real change but Congress won’t pass anything even mildly changing the calculus for companies because 49% is the party who doesn’t care / is on the climate-affecting companies payroll and the other 1% required to swing the vote can be bought for 1/100th the price the proposed legislation would cost us”. It’s frustrating, and the result is that the world burns and everyone just argues about whose fault it is while trying to do any small things they can to help while companies and politicians continue to not really care that we’re rapidly heading towards a non-inhabitable planet in a few generations.

Boritanian 5y ago

The leak is a cost of doing business of delivering gas to YOU the consumer. So the leak is actually part of your carbon footprint.

ajmurmann 5y ago
But I have no control over the leak part. I have no option to pay more to close the leak. In fact, most consumers don't even know about the leak. So I'm entirely unable to make a choice. It's irrational to expect that anyone would prefer to go vegan over just fixing these leaks. This problem will remain till we have a proper carbon tax globally.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  You can always vote for the politicians that are willing to go after the gas leaks, you can choose to buy from companies that are sourcing from leak-free gas pipes or use renewable energy sources etc. Just because you don't have direct access to the pipelines so you can close the leaks with your bare hands doesn't mean that you have no power over it. None of us have any control beyond 2 meters of our existence because that's how far away we can reach with our hands but because we live in a society the things we say or choices we make have impact everywhere on the globe. That's also why we can eat things that are further away than a few meters from us and the leak in question is from the machinery that facilitates all that.
  - ajmurmann 5y ago
    > You can always vote for the politicians that are willing to go after the gas leaks, you can choose to buy from companies that are sourcing from leak-free gas pipes or use renewable energy sources etc. None of these things are true for me. I'm not allowed to vote where I live and even if I could, the US election system doesn't offer a practical voice that reflects this (the broken voting method is arguably is the biggest problem the US needs to solve). I also only have a doctor gas company. So my alternative would be to switch my furnace, water heater and stove to electric. That's actually on my wishlist, but now we are talking significant money. People who live in apartments or even condos likely at best have control over the stove. Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't take responsibility. In fact I've moved to a largely vegan diet both due to carbon emissions and animal cruelty concerns. I feel guilty every day and wonder if my positive contributions outweigh the damage that my existence does to our environment and the harm and pain climate change will ultimately cause for other people as well as coastal cities behind uninhabitable, we see unrest over climate refugees, famines, etc.

arichard123 5y ago

Focusing on personal responsibility is a worthwhile thing to say to persons for whom their only contribution can be their own personal consumption. Also, in democracies, this will lead to political pressure for companies and government to make efforts that suit their status.

jerry1979 5y ago
That seems overly cynical to me. People can tell when they are being guilted.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > People can tell when they are being guilted. And it is an extremely effective way to alienate them and make them vote for the opposition party.

mrtksn 5y ago

Your math seems to be off, 250kcal apparently yields 8.8kg difference a day. Anyway, the idea that personal consumption has no use is absurd. It portrays a false idea that these pipes and factories and what not are made for the personal use of the affluent when in fact all these machinery produce items demanded by the masses. That's why the owners are rich, they produce(facilitate could be a better word) the stuff we want and we give them money to receive the output. Obviously, reducing personal consumption or making choices directly reduces the output of the machinery of the rich. If you want to blame a class, you are better off blaming private jets, mega yacht and golf courses if you are after the rich. These are the only emissions that are significantly different from the rest. Then you come to transportation and large homes of the middle class in western countries, especially the USA.

TremendousJudge 5y ago
The point is that they could still produce the exact same thing, and just _plug their leaks_, and everybody would be better off.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Why do you think they don't do that? Could it be because they are evil or because not enough people will care enough to pay for the price difference due to clean production efforts? It comes down the masses demanding it or not demanding it. You say that personal consumption doesn't make a difference then those who believe you go for the cheaper option even if they can afford the cleaner option. You say that personal efforts can't make a difference then they vote for the party that promises tax reductions instead of the one that promises to enforce fixed gas leaks.
  - mojzu 5y ago
    Are there that many industries where consumer choice would encourage companies to make those kinds of pro-humanity choices? I'd like to buy electronics that aren't manufactured in part by children but it isn't like companies advertise whether they do that or not. So outside of occasional investigative journalism or assuming that they (or one of their suppliers) probably do what choices am I left with?

BurningFrog 5y ago

> The obvious solution would be to require companies to buy emission certificates for those emissions Reality check: The companies the article talks about are in Russia and Turkmenistan. How would you impose these emission certificate regulations without invading them and/or toppling their governments?

RealityVoid 5y ago
Trade agreements conditioned on acceptance and economic sanctions and embargos if not. It's an economic measure you want, you obviously can motivate them economically.
tazjin 5y ago
Your comment reflects a strange perspective, as if the community to which you're talking is only from a single place and somehow excludes Russia/Turkmenistan/US/whatever. That's not the case, HN is an international forum. These laws need to be implemented in each country.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  Russia and Turkmenistan are both run by a single strongman. I suppose HN comments could influence Putin or Berdimuhamedow, but I feel safe assuming they do not.
  - tazjin 5y ago
    This is already getting coverage in Russian media. Your assumption that our politicians need a lot of influencing to care about this is probably wrong, especially since these leaks lead to financial losses. I'd be more surprised if the US did something about it than Russia, to be honest.
tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
a) Ask them whether they want to participate in the scheme to ensure the actual emitters pay their fair share. b) If they decline, allocate the emissions from these sources to the products the country exports and impose import duties that correspond to (or exceed) what the certificates would cost.

BurningFrog 5y ago

About "personal carbon footprint". Life is not an Avengers movie. You and I are not superheroes that can save the world. What you or I do in our personal lives have, by any remotely realistic measure, exactly zero impact on the problem. Thinking otherwise is to me - and I wish I had a less negative term for it - a form of "Delusion of grandeur". It's harmless in a sense, except that people could use the effort they spend to actually improve things for themselves and people around them. In reality global problems are solved on the global level. Things like carbon taxes, technical innovation etc.

polishdude20 5y ago
Isn't a global solution to get everyone to do what they can personally? Why is it global when it applies to corporations but not when it applies to regular people?
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  The way you get everyone to do things in a society is not by setting an example and doing it yourself but by getting the government to set taxes, incentives, penalties, negotiate treaties - so that people have a clear incentive to behave properly (financial or otherwise). This presupposes competent governments who care, obviously, which is the crux.
chimprich 5y ago
That kind of thinking leads to conclusions like "voting is worthless", or "throwing litter in the bin rather than street makes no difference". > exactly zero impact on the problem Exactly not zero. Small, perhaps, and smaller than global initiatives, but lots of coordinated small actions at scale do make a difference.
- MobiusHorizons 5y ago
  Genuine question. Is there any evidence that the thousands of Americans who have gone vegan over the last few years have reduced the carbon footprint of the meat producing industry at all? I checked us beef production, and the numbers are basically flat since 2000 increasing slightly since 2014.[1] If thousands of people going vegan don’t reduce the beef production in this country at all, have they really saved any carbon at all? Would love to see someone with a good data science background look into this. It’s all well and good to talk about personal consumption as if it has fixed carbon cost associated with it, but you have to remember that not consuming doesn’t reduce the emissions unless it affects production. It’s still probably good to reduce consumption because it could affect the production, but it may not be enough to cause any change at all. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194687/us-total-beef-production-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194687/us-total-beef-pro...

time_to_smile 5y ago

While I agree that we blaming individuals is ridiculous, actually addressing this issue and getting towards zero emissions anywhere near enough time will make: > significant personal expense Look like luxury living. Our economy is energy, and currently the vast majority of the energy comes from hydrocarbons. We simply cannot scale renewables up high enough, fast enough, to avoid catastrophe without a change in live style so severe that most people would over throw governments in protest. People on this site think wearing a face mask during a pandemic is a material injustice. We aren't going to address climate change.

jeffbee 5y ago
I dispute that the economy is energy or even proportional to it. California, as inefficient as it is on a global scale, has substantially decoupled its economy from energy consumption over the last thirty years.
- time_to_smile 5y ago
  You can't look at local energy usage and make this claim. It's not only the goods and services that come into the state that require energy in other countries, but all of the capital the flows in as well that ultimately has it's source in energy someplace else on the globe. I recommend reading Smil's Energy and Civilization for a better picture of this.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    California has similar consumption import patterns as other U.S. states like Texas, but compared to those other states the economy of California has departed from their energy/gsp ratios.

danans 5y ago

> but remember to reduce your personal carbon footprint! /s The best way to reduce your carbon emissions is to upgrade your life at the same time by electrifying it, as your economics permit. Along with a silent zippy electric car, you get the added benefit of improving your local and hyper local air quality.

wolverine876 5y ago

> usually at significant personal expense IME, it's usually at no expense. Many/most of the things I've changed are merely a change of habit; some are easier and better. For simple example, I wash my clothes on a delicate cold cycle - the clothes come out just as clean, and suffer less wear, and my energy bill goes down. Overall, changes like that have reduced my energy bill by 70% with almost no impact on my lifestyle. > We're expected to shave off a few kilos of CO2 here and there, usually at significant personal expense, while nothing is being done about these releases that a) could be avoided relatively easily b) have a much bigger impact. The fact that someone else should do more has nothing to do with the impact and responsibility of what I do. Powerful people can do awful things, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't and won't do my best to do what's good and excellent. If we accept the lowest common denominator as our standard .... Why would you follow the worst of others. Look for the best, the most inspiring. It's trendy to mock collective and individual action, including democracy itself - to give all our power, good or bad, to corporations (and mockery isn't an argument, just a signal that people lack one). They are happy to hear it. > go vegan for a month [1] or make similarly impactful changes just so companies can continue venting methane. That's not why.

odonnellryan 5y ago

[1] Assuming I replace 250 kcal from pork per day with Tofu (around 100g of pork which seems to be considered "one serving"), this would be savings of ~1 kg CO2e per day: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-kcal-poore I think most people get more than 250kcal a day from meat. Seems like a strong argument to go vegan to me.

triceratops 5y ago

> So yeah, go ahead and tell me (and everyone else) to go vegan for a month...The obvious solution would be to require companies to buy emission certificates for those emissions Vegans are way more likely to vote for laws like you're suggesting. They can't be swayed by fear-mongering campaigns of "burgers are getting more expensive so we can save the polar bears".